Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for up to 23 dwellings with approval for means of access sought and all other matters reserved for future consideration (revised scheme)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the application was an outline application with all matters reserved except the access. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site and plans to show the location and the position of the proposed access.

He explained to members that the application was largely the same as a previous application which had been approved following an appeal to The Planning Inspectorate.

He advised members that the applicant had carried out a viability assessment and felt that the contributions which had been approved on the previous scheme were no longer viable. He further confirmed that the District Valuer had accepted these calculations.

The Planning Officer advised members that the applicant had agreed to make a contribution of £100,000 towards an artificial grass pitch in Wincanton, however as these pitches were included within the CIL 123 list, a Section 106 agreement to secure these funds for an artificial grass pitch would not be binding on the developer. He therefore recommended that the funds were secured through a Section 106 agreement for projects not on the CIL 123 list, with the funds being split between off-site affordable homes and to local play facilities at Cale Park. 

Mrs J Denny and Mr M Steady, spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Objection was towards the type of property; bungalows would be preferred

·         The Planning Inspector supported bungalows on the site

·         Adequate screening could be achieved

·         There is an alternative access which could be used, rather than demolishing a bungalow

Mr M Dobson, the agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had met with the Ward Members for Wincanton following the results of the viability appraisal. He had offered a contribution which would benefit the residents of Wincanton, however the Planning Officer felt that the contributions did not meet the CIL requirements and the contributions should be for more general leisure facilities and off-site affordable housing contributions. He further clarified that alternative access points had been considered.

The Chairman read out some comments which had been submitted by Councillor Colbert, the Ward Member. Within these comments made by Councillor Colbert, he explained that he had been heavily involved with this application and that his aim had been to make this scheme more acceptable following the approval by appeal. He explained that he hoped that a low density scheme could be achieved which did not include social housing on the site. He further stated that he did not agree with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with contributions which would likely be spent in Yeovil as Wincanton desperately needed an artificial grass sports pitch. He hoped that members would support the Ward Members and approve the application with a further condition to secure £100,000 towards an artificial pitch in Wincanton.

Councillor Winder, also Ward Member, questioned whether the money could be legally secured and whether the house types would be approved at the later reserved matters stage. He explained to members that it was essential that Wincanton had an all-weather pitch.

The Legal Services Manager confirmed that a Section 106 could not be used to secure the funds as an all-weather pitch in market towns was on the CIL list. She clarified that this contribution towards an all-weather pitch should not be a factor in considering this planning application.

The Lead Planning Officer reminded members of the guidance given to them regarding private discussions with developers. He suggested that whilst the involvement of members at pre-application stage was welcome and encouraged, such meetings should be arranged through, and attended by, a planning officer in the interests of probity. In this case some of the issues and confusion raised in the debate could have been avoided.  

He went on to explain that many of the issues raised by members in this case were policy based and it was not advisable to attempt to re-write policy and processes application by application.

Councillor Capozzoli proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation, however this was not seconded.

During the discussion, members queried why the all-weather pitch in Wincanton did not appear on the CIL infrastructure plan and suggested that this could be an error as the need for a pitch in Wincanton had previously been acknowledged by the Sports, Arts and Leisure team.

Members also commented that they would prefer bungalows on the site and welcomed an informative to clearly specify this.

In response to a question, the Planning Officer advised that the application was to approve the principle of development and the access and advised that the mix of dwellings and house type would be reserved for the reserved matters. He advised that an informative was suggested to advise the developer that bungalows would be preferred.

In response to a question, the Legal Services Manager confirmed that a S106 would be binding to subsequent purchasers of the land, however a separate contract would not be binding to subsequent purchasers of the land. She also confirmed that any reference to the £100,000 towards the pitch could not be detailed within the decision notice and that any contribution could only be made through a separate contract.

The Planning Officer reminded members that should the application be approved, it was his recommendation that a section 106 would be required to secure funding towards off-site social housing and outdoor leisure facilities.

The Planning Agent confirmed to members that the CIL requirement on this application amounted to £106,000, however he was also prepared to offer an additional £100,000 towards the sports pitch to be secured through a S106. 

The Legal Services Manager advised that should the application be approved, the CIL contributions of £106,000 would be payable. She further confirmed that the additional £100,000 which has been offered by the developer should be secured through a S106, which would be towards affordable housing and leisure facilities.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli proposed that the application should be approved with conditions and subject to the calculated CIL payments, however suggested that the S106 agreement be removed from the scheme.  This proposal was not seconded.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to allow further discussions with the agent and Ward Members regarding planning obligations.

The Legal Services Manager advised that funding for a specific Wincanton AGP cannot form part of the decision and advised that the CIL legislation would need to be followed.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 7 in support, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02643/OUT be deferred to allow further discussions with the agent and Ward Members regarding planning obligations.

(Voting: 7 in support, with 1 abstention)